Pretty low

I’m surprised there hasn’t been a midnight vigil for Shane Savage. I thought this was a town full of tolerant liberals. Usually you are quite reliable in defending the oppressed minority, Islamic terrorists and the blue-eared western-slope bumblebee. Surely you can find someone else to blame for the illegal acts Mr. Savage has committed. As his friends and family have so compassionately affirmed, his actions weren’t his fault.

A call to liberals who blame the United States for 9/11: Where are you to defend poor Shane?

Shane Savage was convicted in 2003 of threatening to kill a man and a girl and pistol whipping his wife and he escaped from prison last summer for five months.

Why the Chronicle would print this is beyond me. There’s no point, it’s simply a hateful stereotype. We get this every Friday (except this one, strangely) from TamaraHall. It’s really really pathetic.

Now consider the words of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in response to President Bush’s State of the Union address: “He has presided over the loss of more jobs than any president since Herbert Hoover.” Sen. Corzine, D-N.J., weighed in with the comment that this was the largest job loss in 75 years. Clear calumnies. President Franklin Roosevelt in May 1937 had an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent, but in May 1938, during the recession within a depression, the unemployment rate was 20.1 percent. It was estimated that unemployed workers rose from 5.1 million in August and September 1937 to 10.8 million in May 1938. (Gene Smiley, “Rethinking the Great Depression”) That’s 5.7 million jobs, almost twice the supposed 3 million jobs “lost under Bush.”

I can’t find Corzine’s statement, but Pelosi’s statement was a comparision of net job loss over a president’s time in office. From Jan 1939 to Jan 1945 11.98 million jobs were created, offsetting the 5.7 million loss in the period he looks at. So, he’s an ass.

Like this:

Related

We need to get you a girlfriend. You have WAY too much time to research the exact numbers on things like this. It is great that someone does, but you do it far to often and I suspect you leave your room even less than I do.. and believe me, thats one hell of a things to beat :) Montana is a really hard place to find liberal chicks unless they are the pot smoking,yoga, crystal wearing kind. If I happen to find 2 of them I’ll introduce you to one of them :)

If Bush, like Roosevelt, sent the country into full-on wartime production, building planes, HUMMWV’s, tanks, bombs and bullets, and used that to create, as Kerry says, “10 million jobs” (even though there are less than 9 million unemployed), would you be supportive?

No. Why should we? We don’t need the equipment. And a major surplus of that kind of thing makes me nervous. It seems like some would be anxious to put our hard work to use. But really, it’s not something I’d be vehemently opposed to. Anyway, what’s the point of the question? I feel like there’s some reason for it that I’m missing.

I doubt that FDR would have been able to cover the original 5.7 million jobs by 1940 if we hadn’t had to send our men over to save Europe from itself. Again.

A couple little bits of trivia…

During WWII, the Rockola Jukebox Company doubled their employee numbers and shifted production from jukeboxes to firearms (aka ‘machine guns’ or ‘assault rifles’). They made a hundred thousand or so M1 Carbines for the US Army and Marine Corps.

During that period, the term ‘RPM’ meant ‘Rounds Per Minute’ (the carbine fired at a rate of 450RPM).

In 1942, it cost Rockola $18 to build a M1 Carbine. IF you can find one for sale now, you should expect to pay at least $800.

Well, the lend-lease program didn’t start until March 1941. Before that our ‘war production’ was much less, correct? He started expanding the military in mid-1940. In any case, looking at the graph of job growth, it looks like, going at the same pace it was before mid-1940, it would have broken 5.7 million new jobs, even if it flattens off at the time the actual growth did. But, of course, that may not make much of a difference for his total term; I don’t know the growth from ’33-’38.

Sorry for the long response time, but month end at work and all (I should really look at the calender before I get into a discussion).

By the end of 1939 we had built 3000 planes, 500 tanks and 100 ‘Liberty’ type ships under the ‘Cash and Carry’ program.

Other than 1 or 2 Carriers, I don’t remember how many warships we had built, but I do know that in mid 1940 we sold a number of Destroyer type ships to the UK and needed updated replacements.

The Brits were getting ready to fight Rommel in N. Africa.

In 1940, under something called the Neighbors House on Fire’ tab, we built another 6000 planes, 800 tanks, 300 Liberty’s and another Carrier.

It would later become the ‘Lend/Lease Program’.

What could be considered ‘War Production’ started shortly after Hitler invaded CZ in the first quarter of 39. The War Dept had predicted most of what followed, and luckily Roosevelt had listend to most of what they said.

So I guess we are at an impasse. The link you posted is a no-go (most from their site end up that way) and I can’t find any info from 33-38 either.

Since it is generally accepted that 1932 was the worst year of the depression, I’ll conceed part of the victory. The gov’t job programs DID up the employment numbers, but I still do not think that they would have done the whole job.

I just think Bush deserves a little more than what he is getting for the jobs that have een created.

My brothers company is hiring people like crazy. Real “living wage” jobs building, shipping, sales and delivery of luxury furniture.

Not exactly the first thing people think of buying if they think they’ll be out of work soon.

Washington’s unemployment numbers are looking to go below their 1999 numbers. Still above the nat’l average, but good enough for me.